I've been reading and rereading what you said and I'm finding it hard to make sense of it. This is why there is a delay in response.

So far as I can figure, you're implying that understanding motive could help better communication by revealing unmentioned assumptions that the source of the logical argument may have overlooked because it is inherent in his world view.

Is that right?

Lao Tzu would be proud.

No, he wouldn't, unfortunately. What I said is just true about myself. The things Lao Tsu goes on about are far more profound. But thanks for the comparison, as ridiculously undeserved as it is.

Yep, that's exactly what I was saying. But that's just me: understanding someone's assumptions about the world can reveal a whole lot about what they view as logical or illogical. But that's based on the view that everything is relative, which not everyone holds (i.e. what's 'logical' for me, may not be 'logical' for you).

And the Lao Tzu comparison was about the paradox you stated of 'believing in everything and nothing' at the same time. There's a lot of that kind of stuff in Taoism.

Thanks for the add-on nel e nel. I broadly agree that revealing unmentioned assumptions can only be clarifying to an argument, but again I'm having difficulty parsing the sense of the statement after. The rules of logic are the same; they are agreed upon as a common ground for discussion. It's only the other assumptions which may differ. It seems to me that given different assumptions, different conclusions could be reached by logical processes. One conclusion that is logically sound in one set is not in another. Is this what you mean by something being "logical" to me, but not to you?

As for Lao Tzu, a lot of what he says are not what I would call are true paradoxes, but oxymorons - contradictory statements related to each other in order to express a more profound concept. I suppose my admiration for his way of expressing things gets a little too enthusiastic at times.

New facts and rhetoric I get from newsfeeds. I come here with an expectation of intriguing and convincing commentary and for new insights on how those things fit together. And because like every other person who posts, I think I have something to add.

DanB wrote:

Personally I mostly care about the opinions that actual people actually have (on a subject). It's interesting to know other people's minds and discover the other perspectives people have.

Rezzy wrote:

Personally I believe that in the rewarding debates on this forum it generally isn't as important that a good logical argument (ANY good logical argument) is presented, but rather that we have the opportunity to humanize the mind that reached a specific conclusion. We 'win' by learning to understand the minds that can come to conclusions we disagree with. The most effective way is through exploring the thought processes that arrived at that thought. Arguing an academic position because it exists may further debate, but it does nothing for understanding the humans that actually hold those beliefs.

There's something very interesting about these comments from my perspective, especially because I like what you guys have to say in these comments. That perspective, however, is of someone who often runs into charges of "you're just arguing semantics" or something along those lines. There's an issue for me trying to reconciling those comments with my experience.

Ever consider that when running into someone with a different take on an issue, that person's opinions might be confusing at first? That maybe the reason someone disagrees with you is because what you see as merely an issue of semantics is an issue of critical substance to them?

I don't know: I just feel like there's sometimes a disconnect between these kinds of high-minded statements and the day-to-day reality.

Here's the thing, Cheeze. I have no idea what you think about any issues that are discussed here. Your addition to each discussion, almost without fail, is to try to find some perfect semantic definition for everything regardless of context.

Most people use context to have effective discussions. They don't need an arbiter to come in and break down every phrase and boil it down. It's very disrupting to have someone that seemingly has no dog in the fight to tear down arguments for the sole purpose of a semantic discussion. It feels like you just want to have the kind of conversations most of us had in college, usually stoned or drunk. We've been there, done that.

I know you mean well, but please just stop it, already. Instead of joining the next thread with the intent to boil down definitions, start out by just telling us what you think about the topic. You might be surprised at how well we will understand what you mean.

And I do love that Dylan tune. Probably my favorite.

"I suggest we imbibe copious amounts of alcohol and just wait for the inevitable blast wave." - Castiel

If you have no idea what I think about any issues that are discussed here, then that's your problem.

Which is what I was trying to say. In addition to the fact that you're ignoring reality in forming your opinion of me, what looks like a "semantic discussion" to you *is* sometimes the dog I have in the fight. Or when you see me trying "to boil down definitions" it's because I'm trying to defend what I feel on a topic not just by propping up what I've said, but pointing out the flaws in someone's criticism of what I'm trying to defend. And the fact is that, as I explain here, on a lot of issues the dog I have in the fight is a very different breed from that of the other people on my 'side' of the fight.

Also, understand something about when I do "come in and break down every phrase and boil it down." I don't do it just to 'test' someone. I try to only do it when I think it's going to move the discussion forward, when I see two people arguing past each other. Like here, for example.

Could you give me an example where understanding a personal motivation can yield respect or clarifies an already sufficiently clear logical argument?

I have respect for Nomad despite disagreeing with a lot of his positions because of his explanations of why he holds them.

My respect for Nomad comes almost exclusively from his ability to maintain his calm, cool and polite postings in the face of large forum adversity.

That is a very valuable skill. I am sure that most people that post may seem like they are pissed or obnoxious, but in reality they are cool and calm. Emotion doesn't translate to text very well.:shock: